Dell EMC Unity XT reviews

I really like the true unified storage box.

We use it as block storage. We are hosting Video on Demand Service and it is doing pretty well. Previously, VNX required separate hardware to support file based storage which is not required anymore.

To the best of my knowledge, migration from VNX to Unity without VPLEX/RecoverPoint is not available right now. If Dell/EMC will do this, then I would give them a rating of 10/10.

We have used it for seven months.

I did not encounter any stability issues.

I did not encounter any scalability issues.

I would give technical support a rating of 10/10.

We used to deploy VNX5200. We moved to a new box due to technology improvements.

The initial setup was straightforward. We present our all storage to EMC VPLEX and then VPLEX presents the storage to hosts.

Pricing is relatively good compared to other vendors with the same specifications.

We have compared HPE 3PAR, Huawei OceanStor, and Lenovo Storage.

For greater efficiency, use SSD, SAS, and NL-SAS with FAST.

Use at least 10-20% SSD of whole storage, 20-30% of SAS, and the rest with NL-SAS. This will give you good performance as well as provide you with a cost-effective solution.

I mainly use Unity XT as a unified, hybrid storage system.

The most valuable feature is the fast cache with functionality rewrite. 

Dell could improve Unity XT by adding support for NVMe.

I've been using first EMC Clariion since 2003 and we can say that Unity XT is the last in the generation with significant improvements over time

Unity XT is stable.

Unity XT can be scaled up.

Dell's technical support is at a very high level, though it's not quite as good for organizations outside of Europe.

I previously worked with Fujitsu and IBM and would say Unity XT is very good compared to them.

The initial setup was straightforward - I would rate it five out of five.

There is no capacity license for XT and no additional costs for expansions. I would rate its pricing as four out of five.

I would give Unity XT a rating of nine out of ten.

Dell EMC Unity XT is used for virtualization storage mainly with very few files and very little power consumption. We have on-premise deployment on our own organization. We have two Dell EMC Unity XT, and four IBM FlashSystems for our own consumption.  

Nowadays we implement Dell EMC Unity XT less and implement more Dell PowerStore solutions.

Dell EMC Unity XT has good integration with VMware.

I have been using Dell EMC Unity XT for many years.

Dell EMC Unity XT is stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 120 users using this solution when combining all the customers we have. If our capacity requirements increase we would be increasing the use of this solution.

The support from Dell EMC Unity XT is very good here in South Africa. It is important for us. 

The initial installation is straightforward and took approximately one hour. However, the full process was not as simple as IBM. 

I am certified to do the implementation of the solution.

There is a license required to use this solution, but it is a one-time purchase.

The price of the solution should be less expensive. However, at some point, you need to pay for facility and performance.

I have evaluated Pure Storage.

I would recommend this Dell EMC Unity XT to others. Overall it is a stable versatile solution.

I rate Dell EMC Unity XT an eight out of ten.

Our Unity arrays are our primary storage arrays for both of our data centers. We run all our VMs on there, they're all-flash. They've been running great. We've had no problems with them. Fantastic.

The fact it's all-flash is why we chose it. The speed increase, therefore, that we've experienced from it has been great.

Obviously its speed is the main reason why we got it but we've really loved being able to use the interface. We've been able to create LUNs easily. We're able to get in there and create what we need, do everything we need to do, configure it the way it needed to be configured.

In terms of simplicity of ownership, it was almost plug-and-go. We did have some help getting it set up but, as for licensing and being able to get support through Dell EMC's site, it has been really easy. The interface makes it really easy to manage.

There could always be improvements to the UI. For what we've been using it for it's been great, but there are always little tweaks that could happen there.

It's been very stable. We haven't had any issues. I think we had a drive go out and it was quick to alert us and they made sure that we got it replaced without any failures. Everything has been great.

We haven't had to do any expansion on it yet, but I've heard that it's very easy and that, if we ever need it, it shouldn't be a problem.

We've used the technical support. They've been great. They have a good system to alert you when there's an issue. They've been quick to get us the drives that we need.

The initial setup wasn't too bad. They delivered it. We got the software installed, the OS installed, and got it all configured. It was just a matter of setting up the LUNs. We had a little bit of help with that but it was not difficult.

My advice is, obviously, to go with something tailored to your needs. For what this has been, a full flash array and ease of setup, from what I've had experience with, I would probably recommend the Unity array.

We plan to eventually use the VMware integration. There is a little bit that we're using right now but it's not the whole vSAN setup. I don't believe there will be a cost involved with that. It's just a matter of taking the time and getting it set up. Right now, we just have it set up as a simple SAN array.

Nothing is ever perfect. It would have to be perfect to be a ten out of ten, but this is probably as close as we've been to perfect, so that's good.

We are using it as a storage unit. We also using it at my customer site.

It is the storage provider that the company is using. The product is easy to manage.

It provides SAN capabilities and storage replication.

• The user interface could use improvement.
• They could move away from flash and make it an HTML5 file. 
• They should update to the cloud.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable.

The technical support is very professional and provides quick responses. 

When using the callback function, we found it to be good. It is also good for creating cases. 

I haven't experienced anything bad with the support yet.

I was not involved with the initial setup. I haven't worked with it that long.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: good support and fair price.

Primary use case is mid-range to low-end storage, and it performs very well for that type of operation.

We just recently put together a large customer deal. They're going to use Unity's for applications at remote sites, so it's essentially a robo operation. Its main advantage over vSAN was the rebuild, the intelligence of the restoration in the event of a hardware drive failure and, of course, the all-flash solution.

The flexibility of the paradigm and, obviously, its price point.

I'd like to see more of the NVMe back-end for the flash. And the big deal with the PowerMax is that they've used all U2 drives so that they can avoid having to take it down. I see using M.2 and modular sections as being a real nice alternative that could be implemented in Unity at a fairly low cost.

Obviously, we haven't had it in the field for years, but we haven't had any problems with it and we've deployed close to 150 of them.

It's not really scalable. Up to mid-range requirements, it's just fine. But scalability takes you to the enterprise-class, and that's more high-end VNX or low-end Symmetrix.

We've used technical support but it wasn't Unity's fault, it was the customer's. The tech support is very good.

Setup is simple.

For our applications, we'd rate Unity at eight out of 10. It would be a 10 if it had a lower cost. That's really the issue. The value point is, once you get into the Unity spectrum, you're looking at a lot of competitive offerings, and they're appealing to a limited class requirement, so the demands are not as stringent.

In terms of advice, find out what your storage group's expertise level is and their background, and then see if they don't already have experience with Unity or one of the others in the family. It seems to be a natural fit that way.

• Enterprise production services
• Wide variety of applications
• Block only

It did not. Simpler interfaces mean less capabilities for managing. Inexplicable rules of configuration contribute to inefficient disk allocation. The Unity units are an okay upgrade from VNXe, but are a poor substitute for a VNX2 model. It limits the management, distribution, monitoring, and implementation of our storage LUNs.

None. Having used EMC products for more than 15 years, this is the first product in that time that I could find nothing to like.

• Improve the interface and provide more management capability.
• Remove the configuration limits.
• Start over.

Dell is far worse at support than EMC was. It headed downhill fast.

EMC for more than 15 years. Prior solutions were VNX and VNX2.

in-house.

Setup is simple, but at the expense of key management features.

Pricing is as high as it has ever been for EMC.

Compared IBM Storwize and some Dell storage options.

Software updates have to be downloaded to the root of the device. This pushes the available space to 95% utilization. Poor design.

• The performance
• Ease of use

Before the product went in, we did not have any centralized storage. All our service storage was supported separately. We had multiple machines which added administration and maintenance costs. Whereas now, it is a single source of knowledge and repository for all our data. It has made our lives a lot easier. It also has improved our disaster recovery because we have two of them in place replicating. 

• The virtual appliance is limited to 4TB in storage. This should be unlimited for paying customers.
• The front panel is too fiddly to take off and on.
• The support model would be better within Australia. Support has been great, but onshore support would be minorly beneficial.
• Troubleshooting LUN replication can be difficult.
• When making changes to replicated LUNs (Async in our case), perhaps some measures to prevent us making mistakes. (One of our engineers modified the block storage size and it did not follow the proper procedure, and this broke the replication awkwardly. This was the subject of our most recent support ticket.)

We started using it last November, so going on just about 12 months.

No issues. A very stable product. In previous roles, I have also used the earlier models. The VNX Series and EMC do a really good job. 

No issues. It has been a year, and at the moment, I am having a schedule of work put together to increase the capacity. It will be a very easy job. A matter of adding extra disks to existing slots. Very easy to do. So, a very scalable product.

I have not personally worked with the tech support, but the engineers who installed it have worked with EMC's support. It has been very good. EMC has at times reached out to us, flagging that they have noticed a problem with some of the array configurations. That level of support has been very good. 

No, as there was no central storage solution beforehand. We went to market straight away. 

I got professional services in to do the initial installation. If you get the right people to do the installation, they make it a lot easier.

Pay for the training. At least negotiate with EMC to get the training done, because it is a good product and it is even better once you are shown how to use it properly.

I was debating between the Unity 300 and a NetApp Solution. We ended up picking the Unity only because the administration is a lot easier. 

Also, I had used the earlier model in the past, and it was recommended by the supplier as well. 

It is absolutely a good solution. It does have the ability for expansion into Cloud services, which I would like to use one day, but we have not tried that yet.